Ex Parte Belimpasakis et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 25, 201310098848 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PETROS BELIMPASAKIS, ROD WALSH, and TONI PAILA ____________ Appeal 2010-009033 Application 10/098,8481 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MARC S. HOFF, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and JOHN A EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 10-16, 26-34, and 39-46.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 The real party in interest is Nokia Corporation. 2 Claims 35-38 have been cancelled. Claims 1-9 and 17-25 stand withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention. Appeal 2010-009033 Application 10/098,848 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is a system and method for “the reception of content items.” Various data types (movies, music, file downloads) can arrive at the network interfaces of a mobile device (e.g., a laptop computer). The device “may also receive service announcements that impart information concerning available content” (Spec. 3). These announcements could include information such as the network access points offering the content item. Id. Independent claim 10, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 10. A method, comprising: receiving one or more service announcements, each of said service announcements being in at least one of a plurality of formats; extracting one or more service properties from said one or more service announcements; storing said one or more service properties in a predetermined format, wherein the predetermined format preserves the one or more formats corresponding to each of the one or more service announcements; and receiving, at a device, information relating to which of one or more offered network access points are actually available to the device. REFERENCES Birdwell US 6,108,706 Aug. 22, 2000 Laux US 2002/0095459 A1 July 18, 2002 Connelly US 2002/0143591 A1 Oct. 3, 2002 Stewart US 6,732,176 B1 May 4, 2004 Appeal 2010-009033 Application 10/098,848 3 REJECTIONS Claims 10-14, 16, 26-30, 32-34, and 39-46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Birdwell in view of Connelly and Stewart. Claims 15 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Birdwell in view of Connelly, Stewart, and Laux. ISSUES Appellants argue that Birdwell does not teach extracting service properties from one or more service announcements (App. Br. 8). Appellants further contend that Stewart does not teach receiving, at a device, information relating to which of one or more offered network access points are actually available to the device (id.). Appellants argue that Stewart teaches identifying available service providers, rather than access points, noting that “the plurality of access points may be maintained by a first network provider” (App. Br. 9-10). According to Appellants, Stewart discloses only “an access point determining a network provider among a plurality of possible network providers” (App. Br. 10). Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issues: 1. Does Birdwell teach extracting one or more service properties from said one or more service announcements? 2. Does Stewart teach receiving, at a device, information relating to which of one or more offered network access points are actually available to the device? Appeal 2010-009033 Application 10/098,848 4 PRINCIPLES OF LAW Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 550 U.S. at 407 (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that controls.”). ANALYSIS CLAIMS 10-14, 16, 26-30, 32-34, AND 39-46 We select claim 10 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Birdwell does not teach extracting service properties (App. Br. 8). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Birdwell teaches that client extracts such information as “broadcast protocol, broadcast locator, transmission time, and any other information pertaining to retrieval” from announcements transmitted by announcement servers (Ans. 4; Birdwell col. 1, l. 58 – col. 2, l. 29). Appeal 2010-009033 Application 10/098,848 5 Appellants’ argument that Stewart does not teach “receiving . . . information relating to which of one or more offered network access points are actually available” is similarly unpersuasive to show Examiner error (App. Br. 8-10). First, we note that the Examiner agrees with Appellants that access points are distinct from service providers (Ans. 15). Second, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Stewart teaches access points that are operable to transmit requests for system IDs (SIDs), and/or broadcast recognized SIDs to portable computing devices (PCDs) (Ans. 15-16; Stewart col. 11, ll. 9-16). Next, we note that Stewart discloses wireless communication taking place under the IEEE 802.11 protocol (col. 10, ll. 38-52). It is inherent in 802.11 networking that access points transmit identification information (known as service set identifiers, or SSIDs). Users with appropriate devices receive SSIDs and choose a network with which to connect. Taking these facts in combination, we find that the access points in Stewart that are disclosed as transmitting requests for SIDs, or broadcasting sets of SIDs the access point supports, are also transmitting access point identification information. We further find that the PCDs that receive these transmissions or broadcasts are receiving information relating to which of one or more offered network access points are actually available to the particular PCD. If a given PCD does not receive a signal from a particular access point, it will not be able to connect to that access point. In other words, that access point will not be “actually available” to that PCD. We therefore conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 10-14, 16, 26-30, 32-34, and 39-46 under § 103 as being unpatentable Appeal 2010-009033 Application 10/098,848 6 over Birdwell in view of Connelly and Stewart. We will sustain the rejection. CLAIMS 15 AND 31 Appellants’ sole argument concerning these dependent claims is that Laux, like Stewart, allegedly fails to teach “receiving, at a device, information relating to which of one or more offered network access points are actually available to the device” (App. Br. 11). Because we conclude, supra, that the Examiner did not err in finding that Stewart teaches this claim limitation, we will sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 15 and 31, for the same reasons given with respect to claim 10. CONCLUSION 1. Birdwell teaches extracting one or more service properties from said one or more service announcements. 2. Stewart teaches receiving, at a device, information relating to which of one or more offered network access points are actually available to the device. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 10-16, 26-34, and 39-46 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Appeal 2010-009033 Application 10/098,848 7 babc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation